really, the mind changes the world. Even though i'm getting increasingly convinced the literal sense is quite true and scientifically established (though not accepted by established science - that is a different thing), i now mean the psychological sense: the ''world'' after all is just a personal construct. (though personal is not to be believed in to strictly: i.e. personal is socially, culturally, politically, religously, economically etc etc, but still: personal!)
So if you put new expectations and new motivations into that construct it really changes that construct. Note that this is really a tautology: B = A; change A and you thereby change B... DUH! Nevertheless, making it explicit helps. Things and events really have a place in our lives and the question is how we relate to them, not how they relate to us...
ok, that was the theory; now i should go on trying to put it into practice
think wholesomely (even though that might not be a proper english word, is it? - it sounds cool and serves a purpose (which is what language is all about),
fedde
zondag 29 november 2009
zaterdag 28 november 2009
obvious
it is obvious: homesick (though in leeuwarden now)... actually visited CTTB in a dream tonight. As i said to a friend*: going back to CTTB has become an existential need.
it is obvious: searching throught dusty and less dusty books for info on zoroastrian rituals, their meaning and function is, to use exactly the right word, EXCITING. For my first large paper (8 pages)...
I'm also working on another one, exciting too, perhaps even more exciting, for Buddhist Philosophy, on Buddhism and Deep Ecology. Fun times
it is obvious: that i'm stupid - the entire reason for going back to leeuwarden was to go Isis her birthday - i forgot my gift... argh such is life, my life at least.
it is obvious: Pluralism! - perfect norm for all sciences; conflicting views are ok as long as the people are not conflicting.
it is obvious: that one of the things that current sciences sometimes seem to forget is the very pupose of science: helping! To make us more whole(somely) living persons in a world, and increase our sense of wonder about the world. Just some feelings on academia.
oh and: social sciences are no sciences! :P that would be a nice thesis to defend.
see you again!
*that is a problem: when do you call someone a friend anyway?
it is obvious: searching throught dusty and less dusty books for info on zoroastrian rituals, their meaning and function is, to use exactly the right word, EXCITING. For my first large paper (8 pages)...
I'm also working on another one, exciting too, perhaps even more exciting, for Buddhist Philosophy, on Buddhism and Deep Ecology. Fun times
it is obvious: that i'm stupid - the entire reason for going back to leeuwarden was to go Isis her birthday - i forgot my gift... argh such is life, my life at least.
it is obvious: Pluralism! - perfect norm for all sciences; conflicting views are ok as long as the people are not conflicting.
it is obvious: that one of the things that current sciences sometimes seem to forget is the very pupose of science: helping! To make us more whole(somely) living persons in a world, and increase our sense of wonder about the world. Just some feelings on academia.
oh and: social sciences are no sciences! :P that would be a nice thesis to defend.
see you again!
*that is a problem: when do you call someone a friend anyway?
zondag 15 november 2009
girls and days
since i met matangi's daughter - some weeks ago; i kinda failed the test (so had to ''start anew'' to quote the Venerable Master)
so i found this article which made me feel a bit better (things (or people) can haunt you, or at least me)
http://en.nothingisreal.com/wiki/Why_I_Will_Never_Have_a_Girlfriend
lol
worth reading (or skimming as i did) though
so:
currently awaiting some exciting books i ordered, among which ''the end of materialism'' by Tart
Reading J.B. Tuckers excellent summary of reincarnation research ''life before life''
and recovering from my typical ''sad state'' which i've been having every now and then
and: still have to read some stuff before i'll say i've had a productive day (which is a must for me)
and: promised to cook for all three of us; will start around 5:00 pm (?)
conclusion: stop blogging and internetting, start living~! :D
hope to see and hear from all my friends from near and far soon!
peace,
fedde
so i found this article which made me feel a bit better (things (or people) can haunt you, or at least me)
http://en.nothingisreal.com/wiki/Why_I_Will_Never_Have_a_Girlfriend
lol
worth reading (or skimming as i did) though
so:
currently awaiting some exciting books i ordered, among which ''the end of materialism'' by Tart
Reading J.B. Tuckers excellent summary of reincarnation research ''life before life''
and recovering from my typical ''sad state'' which i've been having every now and then
and: still have to read some stuff before i'll say i've had a productive day (which is a must for me)
and: promised to cook for all three of us; will start around 5:00 pm (?)
conclusion: stop blogging and internetting, start living~! :D
hope to see and hear from all my friends from near and far soon!
peace,
fedde
maandag 9 november 2009
going to go crazy
going to 5 extra lectures this week; total will be 13 lectures this week (i.e. all classes + lectures)...
i will probably survive... :P
it is all my own choice anyway. :)
MY CHOICE - and perhaps people might remember that: what i do is MY CHOICE! thank you :)
peace,
fedde
i will probably survive... :P
it is all my own choice anyway. :)
MY CHOICE - and perhaps people might remember that: what i do is MY CHOICE! thank you :)
peace,
fedde
woensdag 4 november 2009
the world ''believer'' (again...) - a frustration
in a conversation with someone who is working with Blackmore (the former parapsychologists who is now a skeptic) said - when i mentioned my interest in parapsychology (though not my stance (i.e. that the evidence pro is stronger that the arguments against) - that ''she is interesting, since she used to be a believer...''
ok, nothing against the person i was talking with: he has far more education (though that might also be the problem) than i have; he might not disagree with the point i'm about to make; he is a nice guy.
what i stated (not literally, here i use more arguments and am more to the point) right away (after letting him finish his sentence of course):
there is a problem in the word ''believer'': it is not an objective term. The word believer makes it seem the ''believer'' accepts the phenomenon without proper proof; yet people like Dean Radin and Gertrude Schmeidler (just to name two) did not start out believing, they had to be convinced by experiments (read: proof).
the point is: the word ''believer'' is dishonest and rude: don't use it.
Thinking along this line:
it might be that Anselmus and Descartes did not believe in God: they had - in their own views - proven him to exist (even though i won't agree with their proofs). The point is: to evaluate whether someone is a ''believer'' or not, one has to know the motivations of the individual (almost from a 1st person perspective (?)) and NOT THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENT (in which ''he beliefs'').
oh btw: this :: http://www.parapsych.org/sheep_goat_effect.htm :: is incredibly interesting! :D
stupid me - taking sides - judging - using CAPSLOCK - - thereby forgetting advice from both Prof. Hayes and dr. Sneller...
though - whatever the truth of psychic phenomena - the above considerations are valid (so i'm convinced (i almost said: ''so i believe'' - which is not strong enough))...
peace,
fedde
ok, nothing against the person i was talking with: he has far more education (though that might also be the problem) than i have; he might not disagree with the point i'm about to make; he is a nice guy.
what i stated (not literally, here i use more arguments and am more to the point) right away (after letting him finish his sentence of course):
there is a problem in the word ''believer'': it is not an objective term. The word believer makes it seem the ''believer'' accepts the phenomenon without proper proof; yet people like Dean Radin and Gertrude Schmeidler (just to name two) did not start out believing, they had to be convinced by experiments (read: proof).
the point is: the word ''believer'' is dishonest and rude: don't use it.
Thinking along this line:
it might be that Anselmus and Descartes did not believe in God: they had - in their own views - proven him to exist (even though i won't agree with their proofs). The point is: to evaluate whether someone is a ''believer'' or not, one has to know the motivations of the individual (almost from a 1st person perspective (?)) and NOT THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENT (in which ''he beliefs'').
oh btw: this :: http://www.parapsych.org/sheep_goat_effect.htm :: is incredibly interesting! :D
stupid me - taking sides - judging - using CAPSLOCK - - thereby forgetting advice from both Prof. Hayes and dr. Sneller...
though - whatever the truth of psychic phenomena - the above considerations are valid (so i'm convinced (i almost said: ''so i believe'' - which is not strong enough))...
peace,
fedde
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)
